This does not contradict anything you, personally, have said, but it stands in stark contrast to others’ words on the subject. The implication from others is that the legislation is itself illegitimate, not merely that they disfavor it but regard it as proper.
Do you disagree with that characterization?
What pretentious poppycock. Which cable-TV evangelist or commentator did you learn to spout “holier than thou” bullshit from?
First of all, we all know you made your millions bamboozling stupid jurors. Your philosophy seems to be “Anything not illegal (or even, if illegal, non-prosecutable) is fair.” If that’s the extent of your moral compass, just go away, or put all rational Dopers on “Ignore.” I believe in the concepts of Right and Wrong. If you’re unfamiliar with the terms, stop reading now.
Second, please don’t babble about how ghosts voted for JFK in 1960 so the GOP has to compensate by indulging in dirty tricks for the next million years. Here’s a simple question to test your knowledge of contemporary American politics:
Which of the two major political parties today engages in far more dirty tricks than the other?
(If you can’t get the correct answer to that question, it’ll mean you’re both stupid and a liar. In other threads you’ve implied that (1) you considered Karl Rove’s tricks the greatest American invention since adult diapers, and (2) you were proud that your side could enhance its electoral powers with tricks.)
With those preliminaries out of the way, tell us what you think of Ohio’s gerrymandered plan to put its gerrymandering to work in the 2016 election. Speak strictly to matters of fairness and right vs wrong – no one’s interested in your “legal expertise.”
Ali Berman, writing in The Nation
So, I guess we owe your guys a rousing cheer of gratitiude, Bricker! Had not been for your guys ham fisted efforts to stack the deck, we might not have won this one!
Keep up the good work! Here’s your ribbon!
Great – let’s not hear any more complaints about limiting voting hours, then.
Oh, you!
Me, too. Abortion is Wrong.
Now what?
Are we gong to use my sense of right and wrong to determine legislation?
Yours? Whose?
:smack: :smack:
Just what brand of idiot are you?? As a voter I might vote for legislators who have a sense of right and wrong similar to my own. Is this hard for you to understand?
Your only point seems to be that 51% of Americans might have become amoral, like you, and American democracy may therefore be doomed to fail.
Maybe you’re right. If so, I see it as sad. You seem to find it a cause for giddy gloating. Whatever.
Meanwhile, I asked you a very simple, very straightforward question. Go away until you can condescend to answer it.
Early voting is very popular with the American people. Plus, its legal and constitutional. And voter confidence! Totally good for voter confidence!
I asked you a question first. I’ll answer yours after you answer mine.
Aww, do you have a sad? Its just losing, don’t worry, you’ll get better at it with practice! And we’re here to help!
Your party is talking about amnesty Bricker. Does that make your stomach hurt?
Also, you still haven’t addressed how voter confidence is served by making it much harder for many thousands of people to vote, in order to keep a car-full of people from fraudulent voting.
Only a fool could think that is a sound idea.
Are you a fool, Bricker?
Now, now, this is the time for compassionate healing! To extend the hand of bi-partisan comity to the losers, as we walk hand in hand together into a bright and progressive future! OK, maybe we have to drag them a little. A little encouragement.
I haven’t read every post by everyone in this thread, but I note that you have avoided answering Kimstu’s cogent point, which, as far as I’m concerned, is the utter key to this entire thread:
Slavery was, unquestionably, the law of the land for a long time. So were poll taxes, jim crow laws, lack-of-women’s-suffrage, and illegal consensual sodomy. All of those were, in their day, legal, enjoyed popular support, and had some rational justification.
Fuck that. They’re dead weight, by their own choice too. Leave 'em behind. They’ve held us back too far for too long. They can either smarten up and try to catch up with us, or just keep sitting on the roadside, bewildered and angry at the world.
At times like this, we should ask: What Would John Galt Do? And do the opposite. Generosity and forbearance, Elvish! I am planning to send along my boxed set of Maya Angelou’s Greatest Hits collection to help buoy Bricker’s spirits in this time of distress!
14th amendment:
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
So there is a penalty for Voter ID laws it just has never been enforced.
So can Ohio, Michigan FLorida and Wisconsin pass laws saying that only Republicans can vote?
How would the Democratic process overturn that law (assuming that the feds don’t step in)?
Your argument seems to be that a difference of opinion means that both opinions are equally valid. They aren’t.
So you are going to go after this 0.0004% problem and ignore the much larger problem of voter fraud in absentee ballots?
Which ones were implemented this time around?
Voting is a good way to determine which of two conflicting opinions should be borne out in society. You run into problems when the conflicting opinions are about who gets to vote.
You do realize that there are millions of greencard holders who have driver’s licenses and social security numbers right?
Making a permanent resident or felon show their river’s license isn’t going to stop the problem of greencard holders and felons voting.
I don’t agree that only a fool could think Voter ID laws are a good idea. I have addressed why adding a tiny additional step for a small number of people, nationwide, doesn’t worry me.
With a lot of work and stringent regulation, it might be brought down to zero.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!
No. Because the requirement to show ID enforce voting does not amount to a denial, as the Supreme Court settled in Crawford v. Marion County.
Or are you now taking the position that there’s only one Supreme Court justice and his name is Damuri?
And how shall we then determine which opinion controls the law?
Notice how none of ou want to step up and answer that question?
Ok, so how do you resolve those problems?
No, but it allows a prosecution after the fact.
And so does prohibition of incest and child sexual abuse. And unlike the ones you mention, we still wish to keep those.
So my question is: how can we determine which laws are outdated and should be removed?